And Bitcoin is far from being "the one & only trusted ledger." Litecoin, Peercoin, and Primecoin have been doing very well for a couple of years, TYVM. Why would you only trust only one form of proof of work? If a SHA256 or ECDSA exploit is found, BTC goes to zero.

What's so funny? Being smug isn't an argument, just an admission of ignorance.

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free. luke-jr 2016Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security. davout 2015Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit. Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives. Jeff Garzik 2013

And Bitcoin is far from being "the one & only trusted ledger." Litecoin, Peercoin, and Primecoin have been doing very well for a couple of years, TYVM. Why would you only trust only one form of proof of work? If a SHA256 or ECDSA exploit is found, BTC goes to zero.

What's so funny? Being smug isn't an argument, just an admission of ignorance.

The cynic in me would consider whether all the trolling you are doing here is for the benefit of the Blockstream investment pool to get some low-cost Due Diligence work out of us. The sort of analysis you are getting from some of the folks here is pure gold.

And my advice to Blockstream investors is to shut the company down now while you still have a chance and buy $21M worth of bitcoin right now while we're at a long term bottom.

The reason? There's no way in hell any bitcoin company will ever be able to outperform the BTC currency.

You don't really believe these things you write do you?

You should know some people have motives beyond financial gains.

I absolutely believe this.

Because if you're depending on gmax luke jr to understand the economics and game theory behind Bitcoin, you're going to have a bad time.

You can bet these guys are buying tons of BTC off market. But they're venture capitalists, their job is to fund companies, not invest in speculative assets.

They're begging to lose $21M then.

With a fixed supply currency, like Bitcoin, the upward trajectory has and will continue to exceed that of any Bitcoin related company because Bitcoin is acting to siphon value away from the Forex and gold markets, the biggest on the planet. That's why your federated server models for alternative assets won't work because ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before taking advantage of any theoretical benefit on those servers. There would be an opportunity cost, along with security cost to leaving it on a federated.

If one would crack Bitcoin they would be stupid to drive the price to zero. You don't kill the goose that lays golden eggs.Who says Bitcoin can't change it's proof of work algorithm?

BTC is destroying the traditional central/statist banking model and poised to begin the same process of disintermediation for stock exchanges. Central banking and financial markets are two geese which lay very large golden eggs for some very powerful status quo powers that be. They have an overwhelming interest in killing BTC before it kills their ability to collect rent.

If you are long Litecoin or otherwise short BTC, driving the price to zero would make you a fortune.

If BTC changes its PoW algorithm, it's not longer BTC because the ASIC-based infrastructure currently securing its blockchain would be useless.

Yes I was implying individuals but I can see governments killing Bitcoin so we can still live in fairytale land However cracking Bitcoin would also crack their security

You are implying a fixed relationship between LTC and BTC. This might not always be true. Yes shorting would make you a fortune but milking BTC would make you more since you can sell stolen coins and resteal them.

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

Bitcoin is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get !!

With a fixed supply currency, like Bitcoin, the upward trajectory has and will continue to exceed that of any Bitcoin related company because Bitcoin is acting to siphon value away from the Forex and gold markets, the biggest on the planet. That's why your federated server models for alternative assets won't work because ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before taking advantage of any theoretical benefit on those servers. There would be an opportunity cost, along with security cost to leaving it on a federated.

I agree with the first part, but that's beside the point. Some people have motives beyond financial gains.

These investors are worth billions, you think they give a damn about losing 1 million? This is a seed round. You're clowning this place acting as if Blockstream has billions to pay back investors and are desperate to "sell" sidechains to everyone.

If you don't believe these tech billionaires don't have their own small stash of Bitcoins "just in case" you are fooling no one but yourself.

I'm still trying to figure out the absurdity of your last claim. As for you what you have yet to figure out it seems is that there are a uses for sidechains beyond tying them to speculative assets. Like, tons of them.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free. luke-jr 2016Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security. davout 2015Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit. Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives. Jeff Garzik 2013

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.

.

Yes, and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.

Sidechains ledgers are derived from and can reconcile with the main ledger on the protocol level.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.

.

Yes, and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.

Sidechains ledgers are derived from and can reconcile with the main ledger on the protocol level.

I thought we already agreed. They are different ledgers. Of course, 24 yo's can get dementia.

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.

.

Yes, and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.

Sidechains ledgers are derived from and can reconcile with the main ledger on the protocol level.

I thought we already agreed. They are different ledgers. Of course, 24 yo's can get dementia.

Different ledgers, whose units are derived and scarcity defined by Bitcoin. Sub-ledgers are an appropriate way to look at it. Or a tree of ledgers is another.

Either way, they use different models to "settle" with the mainchain and SPVP enables this "settlement" to be operated from within Bitcoin so that no external entities need to be trusted.

Bottom line is the 21,000,000 supply limit is respected and its distribution preserved so yes, sidechains can absolutely be apart of this one, main, ledger.

Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain

If you only trust satoshi then maybe his explanation can help your poor cause.

Twisting my words to fit your schizo-logic is not.

SPVP enables intra protocol "settlement" (proof verification). Not speculation. Speculation using assets issued from units on the blockchain will be implemented one way or another. SPVP does not help their propagation considering few, if any, of these "speculative" sidechains will command enough adoption of secure required MM.

Quote

As for you what you have yet to figure out it seems is that there are a uses for sidechains beyond tying them to speculative assets. Like, tons of them.

That was the context for "tons of it" you illiterate liar.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof. 2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof. 2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof. 2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof. 2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?

I am curious. Maybe you are just paid by Blockstream to use inverted psychology and you are only advertising SC.